Of course if you want to spend a good bit more Night Force will hold up to years of reliable service. I am sure others will have other options to list. I have no affiliation with the links above but have bought from them before and they are good to go on purchases.
I speak MOA and have for a very long time everyone seems to have switched to mills .Why is this?
Chuck,
I'll have a go at answering why Mils is popular. Two reasons come to mind;
Mils is compatible with the metric system, and metric is a decimal system (sets, and subsets of 10). For mils scopes, 1-Mil subtends 1-metre at 1,000-metres. If you remember this you can figure out pretty quickly all other permutations, especially when under stress. For example, Mils scopes with 0.1Mil clicks will move the reticle 1cm at 100-metres - 2cm at 200M and so on.
The rest of the world uses metric, again because a decimal system is easier to work with. Only three countries still use Imperial; USA, Liberia and Myanmar. Shows you how much influence the US has on the international shooting community
It would be a new skill but confusing if you had a mix of Mils and MOA.
I've got several vortex viper pst's, now they are more like $600-900. They have some Razor's that are higher in cost.
The vipers are crystal clear, more of them are ffp than second.
If I wanted to go up in price I would definitely look at the Vortex razors.
All Moa, that's what I started with and I'm comfortable with it, mils and moa, is sort of potato - potahto to me. Which ever you're used to.
I won't be doing any big competitions, so feel no need to switch.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"
07-16-2022, 02:56 PM (This post was last modified: 07-16-2022, 03:13 PM by VASCAR2.)
When I look at things in relation to length, diameter or distance my mind automatically thinks in imperial. That is a 1/4 inch bolt. That brass case is 1/2 long. That target is 80 yards away and it is 200 miles to Nashville Tn.
I can intentionally think in my mind a mil is roughly .36 in my scope but a 1/2 MOA just means a half inch in my brain at 100 yards and a quarter inch at 50 yards.
I have a couple mildot scopes and several MOA scopes. I can use a mildot scope with MOA turrets and I have used mil/mil scopes but my mind always thinks in imperial and why I like the MOA based reticles and turrets.
I have the most experience with second focal plane scopes. I have a pretty good ability to judge distance and also have a range finder. I normally shoot at the same places with known distances. I own one FFP scope and it is a LPVO. I bought it to see if Id like FFP. I can see the utility of being able to use the ranging feature at any magnification but for me at my age it isnt something Im going to use very often if ever.
Scopes are tools to me and second focal plane with an adjustable objective is what I like. I know how to use a FFP scope but isnt of any significant advantage to me.
If you can go up a little more, say $2500ish, March makes some really nice, FFP, compact, lightweight, high Mag range scopes. Made in Japan with world class Jap glass!
FWIW, 1 MOA is pretty close to 0.3 MIL. meaning if you are running a MIL scope. 3 clicks at 0.1 MIL each, is about a MOA. TBH, I kind of like this, as I have found 1/2 MOA clicks to be too coarse, and 1/4 MOA clicks to be too fine - though that is very much just a personal nuance.
One thing about FFP. If you're looking to buy one that's over 15x at the max magnification and actually plan to have a usable reticle at the lower powers, like under 6x for any purpose, you will probably want an illuminated reticle. I've found that my non-illuminated FFP scope's (Burris 3.3-18x) reticle shrinks to almost invisibility and is practically unusable at lower than 6-8x. It just disappears. Especially against anything dark. At best, it becomes a very faint x-hair. The scope definitely has a reticle with a bias for the higher magnifications. Very fine lines. Great for use at 10x and above though, which is what I bought it for.
This will generate some hubbub, but it is as true as 52's.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]18984[/ATTACH]
I agree with his sentiment on Nightforce however, they are good scopes. March has good FFP reticles as well that work both near and far magnification - but not in your budget.
07-17-2022, 11:28 AM (This post was last modified: 07-17-2022, 11:52 AM by PVBoom.)
OK, MIL isn't totally to metric. You can do it if you want, but it isn't necessary.
Klem used MILs because he grew up using metric and thinks in metric. And because its a better system.
But MIL doesn't mean millimeter. It means milliradian. As in 1/1000 of a radian, which is a metric unit.
MILS = easier math, because it based on 10 no matter what measuring system you used, instead of MOA.
That is why MILS dominate Long Range Shooting and the scopes designed for it.
It started with the military usage of mil dot scopes, then evolved from there.
Before our current age of smartphone apps that can give you your drops automatically, or even electronic calculators, it was necessary once you knew your drops and distance to calculate how much correction was needed. Those calculations are easier and more accurate when using MILS.
This applies if you operate in a world where you are shooting at various distance targets, as in the military or in competition or hunting and need to be able to rely on mathematics instead of an electronic device.
However, if all you are doing is shooting at a few known distance targets, then it largely doesn't matter as long as you:
1) have a scope with matching units on target and reticle, MIL/MIL or MOA/MOA. This really isn't a problem anymore unless you pick a scope manufactured by morons.
2) know your distance.
3) know your drops.
I standardized on MILS when I started to shoot long range and wanted to be able to range and hold over easier and have the widest selection of quality scopes.
Read this link. I grabbed a bunch of stuff here, but it explains a bit better.
07-17-2022, 11:57 AM (This post was last modified: 07-17-2022, 12:00 PM by PVBoom.)
These are from the Swampfox website, Mike did a great job of laying these out.
You would need to go to bottom of page, select reticle, then the reticle type and this is on the bottom of the page.
These are a couple examples using reticle ranging. For MILS, you need to remember 6' = 183 cm.
Given these, which set of calculations do you want to do in your head?
07-17-2022, 01:28 PM (This post was last modified: 07-17-2022, 10:52 PM by Klem.)
PVBoom Wrote:Klem used MILs because he grew up using metric and thinks in metric. And because its a better system.
[/URL]
I grew up with Imperial in the UK and when the family emigrated, still Imperial until Australia went metric in 74. I was at school so easier to transition than later in life. For us, there are still some things in shooting that will always be Imperial I think. MOA for group sizes. Muzzle velocities in fps, and some of the older ranges have mounds in yards. We need to know Imperial when buying guns and parts from the US. The rest is metric now - you get used to it.
Getting back to mils. I found out the hard way that the first March scopes were graduated in 'US-mils', not mathematically-correct mils. If you work out how many milliradians fit into the circumference of a circle it's 6,283 (or 2xPi = 6.283 radians). For military use you guys rounded it up to 6,400 ('US/NATO-mils') so it becomes a decimal system and therefore easier use. The Swedes decided to round it up to 6,300 so it's closer to what it should be but again, now a decimal system. The Russians have made an even easier decimal system by rounding it way down to 6,000 mils in a circle. Great for artillery or navigating using a compass, but not so much for shooting when trying to use it with metric to judge and dial for distances.
All the Mils scopes we talk about will be graduated in mathematically-correct mils (6,283).
Well, if you prefer a simpler reticle and don't mind switching to Mils, you might consider a Mil-dot reticle. That's about as simple as it gets for a ranging scope. Probably work very well for you out to 500 yds.
PVBoom Wrote:These are from the Swampfox website, Mike did a great job of laying these out.
You would need to go to bottom of page, select reticle, then the reticle type and this is on the bottom of the page.
These are a couple examples using reticle ranging. For MILS, you need to remember 6' = 183 cm.
Given these, which set of calculations do you want to do in your head?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]18985[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]18986[/ATTACH]
I've got a 4-16x44 Patriot on my 18" Lilja right now and so far I've been pleasantly surprised with it. Or in the very least I like it enough to not put my Leupold Mk6 3-18x44 back on it.
07-18-2022, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 07-18-2022, 07:31 PM by SDW.)
FWIW, Since Nightforce was mentioned a couple of times, here is NF's page showing the reticles they offer on their FFP scopes. Many are kind of busy and you will probably not care for them. But some are nice and simple ranging reticles. MOA and in Mil.
Here's one that might hit the spot (so to speak). I kinda like it myself. The MOAR F1, with a holdover scale to 30 MOA. However, I didn't research exactly which NF scopes this one is offered on, so no idea of cost or what magnifications are offered:
![[Image: ?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biggunbulletin.com%...f=1&nofb=1]](https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biggunbulletin.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2020%2F09%2Fmoon-vs-metric-system.jpg&f=1&nofb=1)
